WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Mansion (Gibraltar) Limited, Provent Holdings Ltd. v. Zhang Zhi Wei Case No. D2009-0366 1. The Parties
The Complainants are Mansion (Gibraltar) Limited, Gibraltar, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; Provent Holdings Ltd., British Virgin Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, represented by Rajah & Tann, Singapore.
The Respondent is Zhang Zhi Wei, Beijing, the People's Republic of China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 19, 2009. On March 20, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 20, 2009, GoD, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center concerning the word limit of the Complaint, the Complainants filed an amended Complaint on March 26, 2009. The Center verified that the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 26, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 15, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 16, 2009.
The Center appointed Chiang Ling Li as the sole panelist in this matter on April 27, 2009. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The 1st Complainant, Mansion (Gibraltar) Limited, is licensed to operate online casino, sports book and exchange gaming by the Government of Gibraltar.
The 1st Complainant has been operating commercial websites providing online casino, sports book and exchange gaming since August 2004 at “”, “”, and “”. These websites have more than 275,000 monthly contacts.
The 1st Complainant has been operating free online poker gaming at “” since November 2005; this website has more than 500,000 monthly contacts. The 1st Complainant has also been operating the free online poker gaming website “” since August 2005; this website has more than 50,000 monthly contacts.
The 2nd Complainant, Provent Holdings Ltd, holds the domain names , , and and is the registered owner of several trademarks like MANSION, MANSION & M DEVICE, MANSIONS & DEVICE and MANSION SPEED POKER.
The 2nd Complainant has licensed the use of the above listed domain names and registered trademarks to the 1st Complainant.
The above listed registered trademarks are displayed in the 1st Complainant's websites “”, “”, “www.”, and “www.”.
The 1st Complainant is also one of the main sponsors of the football team, Tottenham Hotspurs Football Club, and the trademark MANSION & M DEVICE is featured on the shirts of the players and on the club's website “”.
In January 2006, the 1st Complainant was involved in the organization of a poker tournament entitled “MANSIONP Speed Poker 2006 Asia Pacific Championship”, which was filmed and broadcasted on Fox Sports Network in April and May 2006. During the televised series, the Complainants' trademark was continually advertised. The total number of viewers of the program is in the range of 1,319,738,000.
Another event was broadcasted on Discovery Channel on September 10, 2005. Further, a series of televised poker tournaments called “MANSIONP Poker Dome Challenge” was broadcasted in Fox Sports Network.
The 1st Complainant also produces paraphernalia bearing the “MANSIONP” logo.
The disputed domain name has been registered in the name of the Respondent on September 11, 2008. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainants contend that the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met by the subject of this dispute.
In relation to element (i) of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is substantially the same or confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademarks.
The Complainants contend that, based on various UDRP decisions, the generic Top Level Domain identifier is to be disregarded in evaluating the similarity between domain names, and the numeral that follows the trademarked words is not enough to detract from the similarity.
The Complainants also contend that they have rights in the trademarks MANSION, MANSION & M DEVICE, MANSION SPEED POKER, in that their trademarks are registered, well known and widely publicized.
In relation to element (ii) of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainants contend that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
The Respondent has never used or made preparation to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 11, 2008, more than 4 years later than the dates of the incorporation of the Complainants and the registration of the trademarks.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website owned by the Respondent but which uses a name similar to the name of the 1st Complainant's website and which incorporates hyperlinks pointing to the 1st Complainant's website. The Complainants have never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use the name and mark MANSION.
In relation to element (iii) of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainants contend that the evidence of bad faith registration and use is established by the following circumstances:
The Respondent has the intention of selling the domain name for a high price in excess of the Respondent's out of pocket costs.
The Respondent is using the domain name to disrupt the business of the Complainants and/or divert Internet users for the Respondent's own commercial gain or benefit.
The Complainants request the Panel to transfer the disputed domain name to them. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is substantially identical with the trademarks of the Complainants.
All that has been added to the trademark MANSION in the domain name is the numeral “777”, and that is not enough to distinguish it from the Complainants' trademarks. (See e.g. SENSIS Pty Ltd., Research Resources Pty Ltd. v. Kevin Goodall,WIPO Case No. D2006-0793).
The Panel therefore finds that Complainants have satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is no indication in the case file that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
The Complainants have not licensed or otherwise permitted or authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks or service marks, or to apply for or use a domain name incorporating its marks.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainants have satisfied the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Several years before the domain name was registered, the 1st Complainant already had a large TV audience. The football team, Tottenham Hotspurs Football Club, continued to promote the mark of the Complainants well before the domain name was registered. The Respondent uses the name of the 1st Complainant's website for its own site and puts hyperlinks in its own site pointing to the 1st Complainant's website. In light of this use, the Panel finds that the registration and use of the domain name has the potential to disrupt the Complainants' business.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainants have satisfied the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainants.
Chiang Ling Li
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 11, 2009
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy